No Homosexuality in Iran

[warrantofice]

Yah honestly. All this freedom crap...can't american's just look in the mirror for awhile? Wasn't like 2 weeks ago some Senator looking for some gay action in the washroom only to find out that they have cops in there looking to stop that kind of stuff. Oh so they don't kill people in America, it just ruins your career and public image? Okay fine...Oh and god doesn't think gays should marry so they can't...what if god told P.Bush that gays should all die?

I don't know, it just seems really screwy this whole visit. I mean what that hell, and that [censored] idiot of a University Pres...You have access to such a powerful person in an acedemic setting and all you can do is help hate monger your staff/country???? [censored] idiot.

[warrantofice]

Oh and has Bush ever visited an Iraqi University to discuss his foreign policy?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

[ QUOTE ]
I just heard Ahmadenijad say so. They don't have it in Iran like we have it here. "Who told you we have it?" he asked.

Maybe it's because they're getting rid of all of them . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

Which just adds more irony to the fact that as of a couple of years ago, the only rock and roll allowed to be sold in Iran was Queen because Freddy Mercury was Iranian. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
All this freedom crap...can't american's just look in the mirror for awhile?

[/ QUOTE ]

Looking everywhere is appropriate, including in the mirror.

[ QUOTE ]
Wasn't like 2 weeks ago some Senator looking for some gay action in the washroom only to find out that they have cops in there looking to stop that kind of stuff. Oh so they don't kill people in America, it just ruins your career and public image?

[/ QUOTE ]

This guy should not have been soliciting sex from strangers in a public restroom. There are plenty of gay bars or anonymous meeting sites or matchup services he could undoubtedly have found and used. I think people should have the freedom to use public restrooms without being hassled or solicited for sex by strangers. He was totally out of line and he is just paying the public price for it since he is in a job that places him under public scrutiny.

There are times and a places for everything and public restrooms are not the place for accosting strangers or making them feel uncomfortable or even potentially endangered, by propositioning them for sex. If someone did what he did in the stall next to me, I would have no idea that it was a "code", and I would feel threatened and think that the guy was probably a nut and possibly dangerous. Keep your foot in your own stall and don't press it against mine you creep. I can't see why people are defending his conduct. If some stranger rubs your butt it is assault, right? Why isn't this also assault of some type (?) or something like that; he is making deliberate and uninvited physical contact.

Maybe he shouldn't have been arrested but he at least should have been kicked out and warned not to return. He would probably claim the foot contact was "an accident", but the hand motion under the adjoining stall sure wasn't. Well I guess it would be "an accident" if someone next to him stood up and stomped on his toes. Come to think of it, I think that would have been more appropriate then arresting him. Toe stomp hard (doesn't have to be a policeman; better if it's not), "apologize", then get him kicked out for not keeping his feet to himself.

There is no reason men should be subjected to crap like this any more than women should have to endure a subway masher or something like that.

Thanks for reading.

[Leaky Eye]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
obviously i don't agree with all of it, but certainly many americans, myself included, believe that the Bush administration (or American politicians generally over the last 60 years) is purposefully creating an environment of fear.

I know I'm not the only one who thinks the "war on terror" is mostly a huge, though politically useful, distraction from issues that have an infinitely greater impact on the day to day life of the average American.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever you think about our administration, you are quoting a true asshat. Half of your quote is just him trying to justify an Iranian nuke. Something that would be a lot less troubling if someone like him weren't in charge there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he is an asshat, but who gives a [censored], asshats can be right.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to advance your agenda you don't use murderous lunatic leaders in your "for" arguments. It makes reasonable people question your judgement. This all reminds me of leftists using Stalin and Mao to help criticize the US Government. Woops! Turns out they are mass murderers.

This is the same reason I don't use George Bush or Dick Cheney as examples to support a point even if I happened to agree with some random thing they said. This isn't science where the person speaking shouldn't matter. It's politics, and it matters who they are.

[Jdanz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
obviously i don't agree with all of it, but certainly many americans, myself included, believe that the Bush administration (or American politicians generally over the last 60 years) is purposefully creating an environment of fear.

I know I'm not the only one who thinks the "war on terror" is mostly a huge, though politically useful, distraction from issues that have an infinitely greater impact on the day to day life of the average American.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever you think about our administration, you are quoting a true asshat. Half of your quote is just him trying to justify an Iranian nuke. Something that would be a lot less troubling if someone like him weren't in charge there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he is an asshat, but who gives a [censored], asshats can be right.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to advance your agenda you don't use murderous lunatic leaders in your "for" arguments. It makes reasonable people question your judgement. This all reminds me of leftists using Stalin and Mao to help criticize the US Government. Woops! Turns out they are mass murderers.

This is the same reason I don't use George Bush or Dick Cheney as examples to support a point even if I happened to agree with some random thing they said. This isn't science where the person speaking shouldn't matter. It's politics, and it matters who they are.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you missed the context of my post. I wasn't using MA as a poster child for an argument, I was asked what he said that a liberal could identify with. That is what he said and liberals definitely identify with that.

edit: tactically I agree with you, a liberal shouldn't use MA, mao, chavez, or stalin, a conservative shouldn't use Bush, Pinochet, Hitler, or Mussolini. That being said there is no problem with using certain arguments of their if they had inherent merit.

[peyote]

It's really grotesque: People are denouncing Ahmadinedjad for killing gays but the same people have no problems killing the same gays with bombs.

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
It's really grotesque: People are denouncing Ahmadinedjad for killing gays but the same people have no problems killing the same gays with bombs.

[/ QUOTE ]
What are you talking about?

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you missed the context of my post. I wasn't using MA as a poster child for an argument, I was asked what he said that a liberal could identify with. That is what he said and liberals definitely identify with that.

edit: tactically I agree with you, a liberal shouldn't use MA, mao, chavez, or stalin, a conservative shouldn't use Bush, Pinochet, Hitler, or Mussolini. That being said there is no problem with using certain arguments of their if they had inherent merit.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think you have to look at the motives of the speaker. If someone on this forum starts a thread saying that the death penalty in the US is wrong, we can safely assume he wants to further discussion and profitably engage him on the subject. When MA mentions the US death penalty in his remarks, it's not because he cares who the US executes. It's to deploy a smokescreen over his own misdeeds and divert attention from what he was questioned about. Even if his point is valid, it's irrelevant to the point it was offered on, and it's used to stifle, not promote discussion. (See also for the liberally inclined when Bush or someone is asked about Iraq and they start talking about 9/11.) That's not the sort of behavior that should be encouraged or reported heavily by the media.

[peyote]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's really grotesque: People are denouncing Ahmadinedjad for killing gays but the same people have no problems killing the same gays with bombs.

[/ QUOTE ]
What are you talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]

I read some threads in this forum in the last days and I was really shocked. A lot of people want a war against Iran. If this would happen, people (some of them gay) will die. This seems to be ok for them. But if Ahmadinedjad kills gays, it's a huge crime against humanity. I think this ist grotesque. Sorry for my bad English, I am from Germany.